ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluation of external and radiological landmark methods for optimizing ultrasound-guided right internal jugular venous catheterization depth in cardiac surgery.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The formula-based estimation of the right internal jugular venous (IJV) catheterization depth can be inaccurate when using ultrasound guidance. External landmark-based and radiological landmark-based methods have been proposed as alternatives to estimate the insertion depth. This study aimed to evaluate these methods using transesophageal echocardiography (TEE)-guided insertion depth as the reference. Ninety-seven adult cardiac surgery patients underwent real-time ultrasound-guided right IJV catheterization, with placement at the superior vena cava-right atrium (SVC-RA) junction under TEE guidance. The primary outcome compared the accuracy of external-landmark and radiological-landmark methods in estimating optimal catheter position (2 cm above to 1 cm below the SVC-RA junction), while secondary outcomes assessed their reliability and agreement with TEE. The external-landmark method proved more accurate than the radiological-landmark method (91.8% vs. 68%, p < 0.001) and had a higher correlation with TEE (r = 0.83 vs. 0.67). Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean difference of 0.08 cm between external-landmark and TEE methods (limits of agreement: -1.75 to 1.90 cm) and 0.43 cm for radiological-landmark (limits of agreement: -2.63 to 3.49 cm). Overall, the external-landmark method is a reliable and simple technique for estimating right IJV catheter depth and is more useful in cardiac surgery compared to the radiological-landmark method.Trial registration Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR20200410012). Date registered April 9, 2020.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.